Jorrit Posthuma <j.posth...@gmail.com> added the comment: On 13 jul 2009, at 17:33, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > > Jean-Paul Calderone <exar...@divmod.com> added the comment: > >> It's not 'that' clear you should only work with bytes on a socket. > > It's pretty clear to me. :) That's what sockets can deal with - > bytes.
It's allso clear to me, but there are people that don't know that. > If you want to transfer something other than bytes via a socket, then > you need to convert it to bytes. In the case of unicode, there are > many > different choices which can be made for how to do this conversion. > asyncore cannot know what the correct choice is in any particular > situation, so it shouldn't try to make it. > > The attached patch forces the application to make this choice, > fortunately. However, since push_str is only one line, I'm not sure > what the attraction is. Why is push_str(foo, bar) preferable to > push(foo.encode(bar))? It's not, I was more thinking of push_str(foo), where it uses a default encoding. I think some people don't know what unicode or encoding is, or don't want to worry about it. > >> Maybe it's possible to do a default byte conversion when the user >> is working with strings. > > This definitely isn't reasonable and should not be done. It's also > not > what the last proposed patch does, so it doesn't seem to the direction > the other interested parties have been working in. It's not an attack ;), i'm pretty new to Python, and it was just something that i noticed (after changing from 2 to 3) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1563> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
